One thing that stood out to me was the idea that you do not repair a corrupted operating system by asking the corrupted system to repair itself. You build healthier systems beside it and allow people to migrate naturally.
That thinking aligns closely with work I have been developing for years.
Communication systems.
Knowledge systems.
Publishing systems.
Identity architecture.
Community support systems.
Sustainable infrastructure.
The objective is not endless conflict with existing structures. The objective is to build practical alternatives that reduce dependency and increase participation.
Strong systems do not emerge because one person claims authority. Strong systems emerge when many people contribute different skills, perspectives and experience toward a shared foundation.
No war.
Less corruption.
Stronger communities.
Technology serving nature and humanity.
The future may not belong to whoever shouts the loudest.
It may belong to whoever quietly builds the next operating system for people to stand on.
"Spot on. We often try to solve specific crises with better individuals, but the real bottleneck is the coordination layer.
Without a system that allows independent actors to verify, share, and build upon each other's work without friction or distrust, 'group problem solving' stays theoretical. You end up with silos, duplicated effort, and a lack of accountability.
That’s exactly why we’re prioritizing infrastructure over hype right now. We aren't just talking about a 'society'; we are engineering the Alpha Omega Library and Living Knowledge Ledger to be the actual operating system for that society.
The logic is strict:
Prove the method (e.g., our QCE prototype validation).
Secure the evidence (hash-verified, witness-backed).
Connect the workbenches (so one solver's data becomes another's foundation).
Only when the system for collaboration is robust enough to handle the complexity of real-world problems can we truly scale the people.
We’re building the rails first. The train follows."
I'd like to see your work. Is it uploaded anywhere? I assembled a system that is fundamental and takes it down to the elemental mechanics. Simple enough for children to do it. In fact children would also be participants in it if they desired. It would make representative politics totally obsolete. The link is here called the Architecture for The New Epoch: https://deniseward.substack.com/p/architecture-for-the-new-epoch
Would be interesting for your Society of Problem Solvers to have a series of shared zooms on YouTube Live where your and your community have an ongoing conversation with Claude in brainstorm mode ...
and your problem solvers continue to improve their questions/prompts in subsequent zooms
as well as export the dialogues to a series of substack articles for each zoom ... maybe focus on a different challenge/problem in each zoom.
This is a bad idea, I think. Claude is a creation of and a tool for Corruptors. The problem before us is organizing ourselves into transparent groups with agreed-upon goals.
Does anybody remember Usenet? It was a remarkably effective way for people to organize and share information and debate issues. Which is, I suspect, why it got taken over by some dark satanic force, and is now so hostile to its original purpose hardly anyone even remembers it anymore. But there is no reason it can't be reconstituted as a web-based app.
Basically, it worked like this: Someone set up a group, gave it a name, and registered it with Usenet. There was no cost to join or participate. From the beginning, control over a group (which was, basically, the ability to include or exclude individual people) belonged to one person. If I recall correctly, each group had a public face where its purpose was explained, with an email address for the list master (I'm not sure that was the nomenclature, but it'll serve here.) If you emailed the list master and he/she thought you would fit, you became a member.
Much like Reddit, people could pursue long discussions on a particular topic by following threads. Or you could distribute news or start a new thread/discussion simply with a unique subject header.
There was nobody who could remove texts or individuals or kill the group except the list master. Theoretically, a list master could become a tyrant, but it would have been counterproductive. Aside from announcing news specific to that group, or introducing new members, a list master was just another member. If you found yourself excluded, you had other members' email addresses and could contact someone directly. That person could then start a thread like "Why was Joe Blow excluded from OurNet?" If the subsequent discussion was unsatisfactory (theoretically - I never knew this to happen), you could always stage a rebellion with a simple message like "I'm Re-Establishing This Group Under New Management at NewGroup."
May I suggest we launch something like this? I refuse to use proprietary social media groups like Reddit or Facebook. But I would think some volunteer could come up with a simple app that would serve.
I would suggest we organize ourselves first as states, then break into smaller groups, organized around cities and counties. At a certain point, it might make sense to break groups up into smaller locales. As more people joined, people in other nations could start their own offshoots.
Perhaps it would make sense to establish certain groups organized around particular issues, but without a geographic base, I'm not sure how such a group could ever gain traction. Then again, people could belong to more than one group.
There would need to be some way to maintain coordination at scale, but that shouldn't be a big problem.
I'm not sure if such an effort would cost anybody anything to maintain, as long as it remained a web-based app.
What do you all think? At 70 years old, I don't have the energy to take a leadership role, but I'd love to help any way I could.
Excellent suggestion. However, the process of communication about things in general is very different to what is required when collaborating in a specific Swarm Intelligence session. The general communication could introduce and drive people to the Swarm process that requires a collective decision, which should be local, as very few decisions require global participation. Globalism is the antithesis of local swarms.
"If you emailed the list master and he/she thought you would fit, you became a member."
I prefer the idea that the originator start a group but then takes on the same status as any other member. This fortifies sovereignty. We must get away from having one person or a group or committee. It would be superfluous because we would have the entire group who could vote on any proposal. Anyone could make proposals. There would be specified guidelines to running a proposal which I detail in the Egalitarian Proposal System.
"I would suggest we organize ourselves first as states, then break into smaller groups, organized around cities and counties"
There are too few of us to organize into states not that it shouldn't be done. But it probably would start off with like-minded people finding groups of common interest. However anyone would be able to chime in on any group. If there was a problem, that is when the issue would be dealt with. There would be no need to specify "rules" prior to joining because it anticipates problems that may not occur. We need to be nimble now and learn to live in the moment as much as possible. The originator of the group would make a proposal to how he/she would like the parameters of the group to be and give an idea of the maximum size the group should stop at. At that point when it is reached, two from the original group help the extras who go over the number limit stated at the initiation of the group. This is in keeping with the culture process, like yogurt culture or compost culture. And the "offshoot" would become a new spawn of the original and have its own character. The beauty is an offshoot would have like two parents to get them started who would be part of that group too and mentor them into the first year or so.
I really enjoyed this as well.What kind of world do you want? One which does not collectively suicide the many for the temporal gains of the few would be a great start.
What could be accomplished if we just set people to problem solving in this manner?
I like this. Decentralization a must. Claude is centralized plus garbage in garbage out. Swarm 8ntelligence is decentralized and undergoes many iterations
Created a place on web 3 for this. Minted 12 worlds for cooperative resource sharing to build decentralized frameworks. It's waiting in the wings... Read my post entitled, Sovereign Cooperative...
It was riveting with many great ideas but also some flaws. Not to take away from it's very inspiring thoughts. I would like to tackle the "flaws" or inadequacies without disparaging in anyway. One that seems a bit egregious is that she couldn't spend more time than 20 or so minutes to help humanity go to the next "level" and avoid extinction. REALLY??? Why did she not have the time? What deadline was she trying to meet? She never explained what was so compelling to lead her away, she didn't have the time to answer questions when she admits she knows how backward we are? She must have thought that we'd have questions, surely? And she didn't make time for that? So really it was a bit of an anti-climax kinda thing.
For something as critical as this, a species about to virtually blow themselves up, which she stated she was here to help give us a leg up, and she didn't allow herself time to answer our questions? All she could muster was 20 minutes of her time to it this massively important mission. I'm sorry that's a bit hard to synthesize within my mind.
There were many good ideas but I felt she didn't give the mechanics for achieving them which we do have already at this substack site. I wrote it myself and it's simply a "stick figure" of a new model, which can turn into a Monet, but everything starts with an outline, a stick figure if you like, when there is no model for it at all. We are creating the new model. We are in an embryonic phase and what we're about to glide into is like the birth canal of our entry into a new paradigm, a new mindset, a new way of thinking, where each individual is the source, by taking back our sovereignty. The new paradigm is individual sovereignty. The current paradigm is hierarchy. We can't be too strict because we have never seen sovereignty before. It's like learning a new instrument or a new language, but even more so because we've never seen the instrument or heard the language. It's like discovering how to make fire. we have to demonstrate what sovereignty looks like by embodying it ourselves. We need land to do this. The article linked below at least shows a system we can use to get started. First purchase the land from the matrix system and transform it into the new paradigm status which is simply that the land will never be sold again. Changes of land holdership will occur by swaps which are made on a database that is fully accessible to every human. I wrote this article long ago and have since modified it further in my mind and am putting down the new version currently. It must be noted that this is merely a stick figure of a Monet-like picture, as I said earlier, it all starts with the stick figure, the outline. Notice the date is cited differently, as this too is part of the new model. Notice the year of the new date. This is the period or epoch that some of us chose to start in 2020 (why wait for the overlords to determine the century?) and start the clock back to 000 (3 digits deliberately) This matters to get ourselves back on a rhythmic calendar. We will get much more clarity to find our path when we live within a cyclical calendar. We must change pretty much everything. And we need to discuss how we can embody the new paradigm changes and collaborate to make real things happen. Nothing can move if we remain alone, we can only go forward as groups and networks. So we need to "find our kin", those who would like to take part in this new model for purchasing real estate, and transforming it into parcels that will never be sold and instead "registered" or rather "recorded" on a "people's landholding database". We need to have land to be able to practice a social system based on sovereignty and see what it would yield.
Let's make things get better instead of worse. Any ideas ought to be put forward to be considered by the group. This is the formula it would better us to go by rather than the idea of copyright or patents. We must reject the idea of copyrights and patents outright. Forget them entirely as we record land and anything else, on databases that are totally transparent, for everyone to be able to see. And we would live in an open society. That would be the "terrain" that would be unfavorable for sociopaths and psychopaths. No intentional killing of our species would be the common factor. We must have systems that are built for minimizing the conditions that are favorable for sociopaths and the only sure way is to live in the open. That would also make surveillance irrelevant. An approval system which I call the Egalitarian Proposal System would replace representative politics. It's all written and can be followed or debated. Here's the way we can start getting land to live on that we can being the process for this new paradigm. I welcome all comments. This is what I called it originally - the permaculture neighborhood village. https://deniseward.substack.com/p/permaculture-neighborhoodvillage
Hi Denise - The time limit was to create a sense of urgency and stimulate both thought, response, and sharing of ideas. IN this respect, mission accomplished.
I agree with you that land is the keystone to our freedom. This has been stated by many people in the Freedom movement.
I will read through your link and respond. In the mean time, read tomorrow’s ParaGov email, as it discusses a new publishing service created by a Private Membership Association.
You mean read your post tomorrow? I just subscribed to you. This subject (of sovereignty) is where my work lies. Yes after you read the link I provided, I would love to hear your thoughts.
lol. The time constraint was to make the article a digestible length. It was already pretty long. 😂
Individualism is a major part of it. Individual sovereignty alone isn’t enough though. The American Indians were individually sovereign, and warrior spirits, but they were still taken over and controlled. Why? Because of technology.
That’s what is going to happen to us if we only focus on individual sovereignty and not using technology to help us.
The PMAs we discuss at the end of the article are the way to get land and sovereignty. But we still must use technology. If we try to run and hide from it, it will be like the gunpowder to the American Indians.
What a delightful way to share these ideas!! There’s just way too much going on on Substack and that makes it hard to find things I’m looking for. The serendipity of you sharing this piece again in your chat allowed me to find it. The way I make sense of it is that all of us could use the chats associated with our accounts to share outside. The main algorithmic feeds as a way of finding new places for the value we’re adding to find the hands we want to put it in. Thanks so much for this piece. I’ve just been making comments all morning on a piece by @open letters from Mersault… what you’ve written about here is the counter balance to what he’s reporting about. If you have time, you might want to go take a read and make some comments there and share this piece…
If you study how Swarm Intelligence works, everyone using the technology are acting independently and anonymously based on the information at hand. Their collective decisions cannot be controlled. In this respect, the system cannot be corrupted. For anyone to control the system, they would require numbers that they cannot accumulate in a decentralized system.
The key therefore, is decentralization.
Musk et al are wanting to centralize everything, which is the anthesis of Swarm Intelligence. Likewise, it is not the hive mind, which is dependent upon a centralized system that focuses on brainwashing and indoctrination.
Lastly, the Swarm Intelligence system is controlled by the members themselves.
This is a common push back by people who do not understand collective intelligence. Even in a bee hive the Queen has virtually no say. What you are describing is centralized control, which is what we have now, you are right. Is it top-down? Or bottom up? Collective intelligence is the opposite of a “hive mind” in the way you are using it, which is groupthink.
We have no choice. If we fail to use technology for freedom, the Corruptors will use it to enslave us.
So what is your solution? Should we believe we are against an all powerful enemy and do nothing? Let them do what they want?
Or do we make it impossible for them to control everyone on the planet using different Swarm Intelligence systems in decentralized locations to make different decisions at all times.
The strategic advantage of decentralization is that they cannot fight it. This is why they want to centralize everything. The Hive Mind only works when people assemble around cell phone towers in urban areas. In rural areas, with smaller population groups using Swarm Intelligence systems to run their communities, this is simply not possible.
You did not watch the video I offered above. This means that you have misunderstood me and worse still, are oblivious of the solution which was implied therein. Until you take in the content of the video (referencing targeted individuals testimony from as far back as 90s) and have extrapolated the dire consequences of having permitted electro-magnetic frequency weapons to proliferate and undoubtedly improve - our communications will be unsatisfactory.
We are living in a totally unnatural electro-magnetic chaos in our inner cities. We are getting very sick because of this.
We need to rein in telecommunications with tighter guidelines, on similar lines to the Russians and Chinese. Until that is done we are mentally, spiritually, emotionally and physically compromised and therefore completely unreliable.
Frances - I will watch your video in the next few days. I wasn’t ready to commit 2:30 hours at the time because I had other commitments.
I’m very much aware of the dangers of electromagnetic frequencies and have written about it very recently in fact. The cell phone towers forms the neural network that provide data to the monstrous brains called data centers. The Wise Wolf has indicated these data centers are named after demons: https://www.thewisewolf.club/p/data-centers-named-after-demons which is further confirmation of a satanic underclass.
The parasite class has worked very hard at getting us herded into the slaughter pens they call cities. Cities that make us dependent upon the parasite class.
I believe that our salvation requires us to move back to rural areas and sustain ourselves. Ideal communities hover around 150-people and this is supported by research by Robin Dunbar. At 150 people there is no need for laws or police because the community is based on trust.
Communities can be federated, and this is where Swarm intelligence kicks in. The will of the community, and not corruptible representatives, drives federated decisions. Decentralized control is the death knell of centralized corruption.
Again. You are not addressing my point because you have not watched the video. Even just half an hour would help you to understand the topic I am raising with you.
I like the ideas here. But my nature is to try to poke holes. I gain confidence in an idea by not being able to find any holes. As a 2A proponent, I often find gun control a useful lens. I presume the goal is to have a society controlled by swarm intelligence. Proponents probably don't like the word "controlled", but like it or not, rules and enforcement are required in any society. Without rules and enforcement bad actors will dump poison straight into the river, for example. Say 40% think the right to own highly effective firearms is vital, and a red line to them. But 60% of the swarm think it's dangerous and unnecessary. I don't see the 40% ever giving in to the will of the swarm. There are tons of issues like this that seems like they'd break loyalty to the swarm. I keep meaning to read a lot of the stuff the author has referenced. Maybe it's already answered, if that's the case, wonderful.
We have run gun control through a swarm of very diverse people and gotten very interesting answers. You would be surprised. There is a big difference between government giving you a rule to follow and people creating a society that is reasonable. Again we look for confidence scores. And we also have a code or constitution as vital. Which could address your valid concerns.
Interesting article.
One thing that stood out to me was the idea that you do not repair a corrupted operating system by asking the corrupted system to repair itself. You build healthier systems beside it and allow people to migrate naturally.
That thinking aligns closely with work I have been developing for years.
Communication systems.
Knowledge systems.
Publishing systems.
Identity architecture.
Community support systems.
Sustainable infrastructure.
The objective is not endless conflict with existing structures. The objective is to build practical alternatives that reduce dependency and increase participation.
Strong systems do not emerge because one person claims authority. Strong systems emerge when many people contribute different skills, perspectives and experience toward a shared foundation.
No war.
Less corruption.
Stronger communities.
Technology serving nature and humanity.
The future may not belong to whoever shouts the loudest.
It may belong to whoever quietly builds the next operating system for people to stand on.
MJ
Indeed. But all of those things you listed would likely benefit if we built better group problem solving systems first, no?
A good point.
"Spot on. We often try to solve specific crises with better individuals, but the real bottleneck is the coordination layer.
Without a system that allows independent actors to verify, share, and build upon each other's work without friction or distrust, 'group problem solving' stays theoretical. You end up with silos, duplicated effort, and a lack of accountability.
That’s exactly why we’re prioritizing infrastructure over hype right now. We aren't just talking about a 'society'; we are engineering the Alpha Omega Library and Living Knowledge Ledger to be the actual operating system for that society.
The logic is strict:
Prove the method (e.g., our QCE prototype validation).
Secure the evidence (hash-verified, witness-backed).
Connect the workbenches (so one solver's data becomes another's foundation).
Only when the system for collaboration is robust enough to handle the complexity of real-world problems can we truly scale the people.
We’re building the rails first. The train follows."
I'd like to see your work. Is it uploaded anywhere? I assembled a system that is fundamental and takes it down to the elemental mechanics. Simple enough for children to do it. In fact children would also be participants in it if they desired. It would make representative politics totally obsolete. The link is here called the Architecture for The New Epoch: https://deniseward.substack.com/p/architecture-for-the-new-epoch
Do link your website if you please.
Way cool :)
Would be interesting for your Society of Problem Solvers to have a series of shared zooms on YouTube Live where your and your community have an ongoing conversation with Claude in brainstorm mode ...
and your problem solvers continue to improve their questions/prompts in subsequent zooms
as well as export the dialogues to a series of substack articles for each zoom ... maybe focus on a different challenge/problem in each zoom.
This is a bad idea, I think. Claude is a creation of and a tool for Corruptors. The problem before us is organizing ourselves into transparent groups with agreed-upon goals.
Does anybody remember Usenet? It was a remarkably effective way for people to organize and share information and debate issues. Which is, I suspect, why it got taken over by some dark satanic force, and is now so hostile to its original purpose hardly anyone even remembers it anymore. But there is no reason it can't be reconstituted as a web-based app.
Basically, it worked like this: Someone set up a group, gave it a name, and registered it with Usenet. There was no cost to join or participate. From the beginning, control over a group (which was, basically, the ability to include or exclude individual people) belonged to one person. If I recall correctly, each group had a public face where its purpose was explained, with an email address for the list master (I'm not sure that was the nomenclature, but it'll serve here.) If you emailed the list master and he/she thought you would fit, you became a member.
Much like Reddit, people could pursue long discussions on a particular topic by following threads. Or you could distribute news or start a new thread/discussion simply with a unique subject header.
There was nobody who could remove texts or individuals or kill the group except the list master. Theoretically, a list master could become a tyrant, but it would have been counterproductive. Aside from announcing news specific to that group, or introducing new members, a list master was just another member. If you found yourself excluded, you had other members' email addresses and could contact someone directly. That person could then start a thread like "Why was Joe Blow excluded from OurNet?" If the subsequent discussion was unsatisfactory (theoretically - I never knew this to happen), you could always stage a rebellion with a simple message like "I'm Re-Establishing This Group Under New Management at NewGroup."
May I suggest we launch something like this? I refuse to use proprietary social media groups like Reddit or Facebook. But I would think some volunteer could come up with a simple app that would serve.
I would suggest we organize ourselves first as states, then break into smaller groups, organized around cities and counties. At a certain point, it might make sense to break groups up into smaller locales. As more people joined, people in other nations could start their own offshoots.
Perhaps it would make sense to establish certain groups organized around particular issues, but without a geographic base, I'm not sure how such a group could ever gain traction. Then again, people could belong to more than one group.
There would need to be some way to maintain coordination at scale, but that shouldn't be a big problem.
I'm not sure if such an effort would cost anybody anything to maintain, as long as it remained a web-based app.
What do you all think? At 70 years old, I don't have the energy to take a leadership role, but I'd love to help any way I could.
Sounds pretty interesting!
Excellent suggestion. However, the process of communication about things in general is very different to what is required when collaborating in a specific Swarm Intelligence session. The general communication could introduce and drive people to the Swarm process that requires a collective decision, which should be local, as very few decisions require global participation. Globalism is the antithesis of local swarms.
"If you emailed the list master and he/she thought you would fit, you became a member."
I prefer the idea that the originator start a group but then takes on the same status as any other member. This fortifies sovereignty. We must get away from having one person or a group or committee. It would be superfluous because we would have the entire group who could vote on any proposal. Anyone could make proposals. There would be specified guidelines to running a proposal which I detail in the Egalitarian Proposal System.
"I would suggest we organize ourselves first as states, then break into smaller groups, organized around cities and counties"
There are too few of us to organize into states not that it shouldn't be done. But it probably would start off with like-minded people finding groups of common interest. However anyone would be able to chime in on any group. If there was a problem, that is when the issue would be dealt with. There would be no need to specify "rules" prior to joining because it anticipates problems that may not occur. We need to be nimble now and learn to live in the moment as much as possible. The originator of the group would make a proposal to how he/she would like the parameters of the group to be and give an idea of the maximum size the group should stop at. At that point when it is reached, two from the original group help the extras who go over the number limit stated at the initiation of the group. This is in keeping with the culture process, like yogurt culture or compost culture. And the "offshoot" would become a new spawn of the original and have its own character. The beauty is an offshoot would have like two parents to get them started who would be part of that group too and mentor them into the first year or so.
I wouldn't want to set any rules in concrete at this point. Good will, honesty and transparency should obviate any serious problems.
BTW ... I meant to say "you" (not "your")
I really enjoyed this as well.What kind of world do you want? One which does not collectively suicide the many for the temporal gains of the few would be a great start.
What could be accomplished if we just set people to problem solving in this manner?
I know, right? Imagine we noticed everything was contingent and actually tried to design something better, huh.
I have a few ideas about that.
I like this. Decentralization a must. Claude is centralized plus garbage in garbage out. Swarm 8ntelligence is decentralized and undergoes many iterations
Created a place on web 3 for this. Minted 12 worlds for cooperative resource sharing to build decentralized frameworks. It's waiting in the wings... Read my post entitled, Sovereign Cooperative...
Post a link here please
https://inalienablesovereignty.substack.com/p/sovereign-collective?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=15j9fy
It was riveting with many great ideas but also some flaws. Not to take away from it's very inspiring thoughts. I would like to tackle the "flaws" or inadequacies without disparaging in anyway. One that seems a bit egregious is that she couldn't spend more time than 20 or so minutes to help humanity go to the next "level" and avoid extinction. REALLY??? Why did she not have the time? What deadline was she trying to meet? She never explained what was so compelling to lead her away, she didn't have the time to answer questions when she admits she knows how backward we are? She must have thought that we'd have questions, surely? And she didn't make time for that? So really it was a bit of an anti-climax kinda thing.
For something as critical as this, a species about to virtually blow themselves up, which she stated she was here to help give us a leg up, and she didn't allow herself time to answer our questions? All she could muster was 20 minutes of her time to it this massively important mission. I'm sorry that's a bit hard to synthesize within my mind.
There were many good ideas but I felt she didn't give the mechanics for achieving them which we do have already at this substack site. I wrote it myself and it's simply a "stick figure" of a new model, which can turn into a Monet, but everything starts with an outline, a stick figure if you like, when there is no model for it at all. We are creating the new model. We are in an embryonic phase and what we're about to glide into is like the birth canal of our entry into a new paradigm, a new mindset, a new way of thinking, where each individual is the source, by taking back our sovereignty. The new paradigm is individual sovereignty. The current paradigm is hierarchy. We can't be too strict because we have never seen sovereignty before. It's like learning a new instrument or a new language, but even more so because we've never seen the instrument or heard the language. It's like discovering how to make fire. we have to demonstrate what sovereignty looks like by embodying it ourselves. We need land to do this. The article linked below at least shows a system we can use to get started. First purchase the land from the matrix system and transform it into the new paradigm status which is simply that the land will never be sold again. Changes of land holdership will occur by swaps which are made on a database that is fully accessible to every human. I wrote this article long ago and have since modified it further in my mind and am putting down the new version currently. It must be noted that this is merely a stick figure of a Monet-like picture, as I said earlier, it all starts with the stick figure, the outline. Notice the date is cited differently, as this too is part of the new model. Notice the year of the new date. This is the period or epoch that some of us chose to start in 2020 (why wait for the overlords to determine the century?) and start the clock back to 000 (3 digits deliberately) This matters to get ourselves back on a rhythmic calendar. We will get much more clarity to find our path when we live within a cyclical calendar. We must change pretty much everything. And we need to discuss how we can embody the new paradigm changes and collaborate to make real things happen. Nothing can move if we remain alone, we can only go forward as groups and networks. So we need to "find our kin", those who would like to take part in this new model for purchasing real estate, and transforming it into parcels that will never be sold and instead "registered" or rather "recorded" on a "people's landholding database". We need to have land to be able to practice a social system based on sovereignty and see what it would yield.
Let's make things get better instead of worse. Any ideas ought to be put forward to be considered by the group. This is the formula it would better us to go by rather than the idea of copyright or patents. We must reject the idea of copyrights and patents outright. Forget them entirely as we record land and anything else, on databases that are totally transparent, for everyone to be able to see. And we would live in an open society. That would be the "terrain" that would be unfavorable for sociopaths and psychopaths. No intentional killing of our species would be the common factor. We must have systems that are built for minimizing the conditions that are favorable for sociopaths and the only sure way is to live in the open. That would also make surveillance irrelevant. An approval system which I call the Egalitarian Proposal System would replace representative politics. It's all written and can be followed or debated. Here's the way we can start getting land to live on that we can being the process for this new paradigm. I welcome all comments. This is what I called it originally - the permaculture neighborhood village. https://deniseward.substack.com/p/permaculture-neighborhoodvillage
Hi Denise - The time limit was to create a sense of urgency and stimulate both thought, response, and sharing of ideas. IN this respect, mission accomplished.
I agree with you that land is the keystone to our freedom. This has been stated by many people in the Freedom movement.
I will read through your link and respond. In the mean time, read tomorrow’s ParaGov email, as it discusses a new publishing service created by a Private Membership Association.
You mean read your post tomorrow? I just subscribed to you. This subject (of sovereignty) is where my work lies. Yes after you read the link I provided, I would love to hear your thoughts.
lol. The time constraint was to make the article a digestible length. It was already pretty long. 😂
Individualism is a major part of it. Individual sovereignty alone isn’t enough though. The American Indians were individually sovereign, and warrior spirits, but they were still taken over and controlled. Why? Because of technology.
That’s what is going to happen to us if we only focus on individual sovereignty and not using technology to help us.
The PMAs we discuss at the end of the article are the way to get land and sovereignty. But we still must use technology. If we try to run and hide from it, it will be like the gunpowder to the American Indians.
What a delightful way to share these ideas!! There’s just way too much going on on Substack and that makes it hard to find things I’m looking for. The serendipity of you sharing this piece again in your chat allowed me to find it. The way I make sense of it is that all of us could use the chats associated with our accounts to share outside. The main algorithmic feeds as a way of finding new places for the value we’re adding to find the hands we want to put it in. Thanks so much for this piece. I’ve just been making comments all morning on a piece by @open letters from Mersault… what you’ve written about here is the counter balance to what he’s reporting about. If you have time, you might want to go take a read and make some comments there and share this piece…
Thank you so much for the kind words. Which article was it that you were reading?
I meant by Mersault
The Visitor article you linked to in your chat.
Full-spectrum holistic systems thinking rooted deep in causality and the sanctity of awareness?
Absorb and reflect illumination, peeps:
https://agnosticfundamentalism.substack.com/p/workplace-induction-for-collective
"The most powerful weapon in the hands of the
oppressor is the mind of the oppressed..."
-S.Biko
--
'Afraid of our own shadow'
Trying to Avoid Pain,
Americans Have Only Delayed the Inevitable and Allowed the Cancer to Spread
https://tinyurl.com/bdeze6dc
Are 'we' a 'community' ?
if so, of what?
Quite 'eclectic' ?
;-)
can anybody synopsis this?
https://newsletter.martingeddes.com/p/not-the-american-declaration-of-independence
Simon Dixon / Decentralized Communities
https://youtu.be/u4RawKdA_gM?t=7372
**TimeBanking**
This is one very good, very under-utilized framework that accomplishes a lot of what The Visitor recommends. More info here:
https://www.timebanks.org/
Hi JR - I will check it out. It seems to fit in as a better solution than the monopoly money the world likes using.
https://substack.com/@davidwaterman3/note/p-190731638?r=15vmqh I will speak we need the vehicle
I find it chillingly similar to the "hive mind" we already have!
Musk and pals are planning to control the hive mind, just like any worker bee colony.
There will be a queen arising and we are back to square one defending ourselves against tyranny.
If you study how Swarm Intelligence works, everyone using the technology are acting independently and anonymously based on the information at hand. Their collective decisions cannot be controlled. In this respect, the system cannot be corrupted. For anyone to control the system, they would require numbers that they cannot accumulate in a decentralized system.
The key therefore, is decentralization.
Musk et al are wanting to centralize everything, which is the anthesis of Swarm Intelligence. Likewise, it is not the hive mind, which is dependent upon a centralized system that focuses on brainwashing and indoctrination.
Lastly, the Swarm Intelligence system is controlled by the members themselves.
This is a common push back by people who do not understand collective intelligence. Even in a bee hive the Queen has virtually no say. What you are describing is centralized control, which is what we have now, you are right. Is it top-down? Or bottom up? Collective intelligence is the opposite of a “hive mind” in the way you are using it, which is groupthink.
We have no choice. If we fail to use technology for freedom, the Corruptors will use it to enslave us.
Oh come on! The technology is already enslaving us!
Decades of people complaining of being technologically targeted?
https://youtu.be/qy3lU9bMypU
So what is your solution? Should we believe we are against an all powerful enemy and do nothing? Let them do what they want?
Or do we make it impossible for them to control everyone on the planet using different Swarm Intelligence systems in decentralized locations to make different decisions at all times.
The strategic advantage of decentralization is that they cannot fight it. This is why they want to centralize everything. The Hive Mind only works when people assemble around cell phone towers in urban areas. In rural areas, with smaller population groups using Swarm Intelligence systems to run their communities, this is simply not possible.
You did not watch the video I offered above. This means that you have misunderstood me and worse still, are oblivious of the solution which was implied therein. Until you take in the content of the video (referencing targeted individuals testimony from as far back as 90s) and have extrapolated the dire consequences of having permitted electro-magnetic frequency weapons to proliferate and undoubtedly improve - our communications will be unsatisfactory.
We are living in a totally unnatural electro-magnetic chaos in our inner cities. We are getting very sick because of this.
We need to rein in telecommunications with tighter guidelines, on similar lines to the Russians and Chinese. Until that is done we are mentally, spiritually, emotionally and physically compromised and therefore completely unreliable.
Frances - I will watch your video in the next few days. I wasn’t ready to commit 2:30 hours at the time because I had other commitments.
I’m very much aware of the dangers of electromagnetic frequencies and have written about it very recently in fact. The cell phone towers forms the neural network that provide data to the monstrous brains called data centers. The Wise Wolf has indicated these data centers are named after demons: https://www.thewisewolf.club/p/data-centers-named-after-demons which is further confirmation of a satanic underclass.
The parasite class has worked very hard at getting us herded into the slaughter pens they call cities. Cities that make us dependent upon the parasite class.
I believe that our salvation requires us to move back to rural areas and sustain ourselves. Ideal communities hover around 150-people and this is supported by research by Robin Dunbar. At 150 people there is no need for laws or police because the community is based on trust.
Communities can be federated, and this is where Swarm intelligence kicks in. The will of the community, and not corruptible representatives, drives federated decisions. Decentralized control is the death knell of centralized corruption.
Again. You are not addressing my point because you have not watched the video. Even just half an hour would help you to understand the topic I am raising with you.
I like the ideas here. But my nature is to try to poke holes. I gain confidence in an idea by not being able to find any holes. As a 2A proponent, I often find gun control a useful lens. I presume the goal is to have a society controlled by swarm intelligence. Proponents probably don't like the word "controlled", but like it or not, rules and enforcement are required in any society. Without rules and enforcement bad actors will dump poison straight into the river, for example. Say 40% think the right to own highly effective firearms is vital, and a red line to them. But 60% of the swarm think it's dangerous and unnecessary. I don't see the 40% ever giving in to the will of the swarm. There are tons of issues like this that seems like they'd break loyalty to the swarm. I keep meaning to read a lot of the stuff the author has referenced. Maybe it's already answered, if that's the case, wonderful.
We have run gun control through a swarm of very diverse people and gotten very interesting answers. You would be surprised. There is a big difference between government giving you a rule to follow and people creating a society that is reasonable. Again we look for confidence scores. And we also have a code or constitution as vital. Which could address your valid concerns.